Difference between revisions of "Forum:A People's History of the United States"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 35: Line 35:
 
:::::Pardon me. ''That'' level of control only exists in [[Conspiracy theory|deranged fantasies]]. Industrial cartels could influence the system a lot, and even subvert it to some degree, but they never had ''total'' control. And even assuming such control ''was'' possible, they did not have it in the time of Andrew Jackson.
 
:::::Pardon me. ''That'' level of control only exists in [[Conspiracy theory|deranged fantasies]]. Industrial cartels could influence the system a lot, and even subvert it to some degree, but they never had ''total'' control. And even assuming such control ''was'' possible, they did not have it in the time of Andrew Jackson.
 
:::::My objection was not to the idea that the Spanish-American War was a war of expansion, but to Zinn's claim that the labor unions opposed the war ''for that reason''. Labor unions are not the oh-so-culturally-sensitive saintly conclaves that fill Reds' delusions, and the main reason that unionists were against war then was that the big-shots used it to set various groups of ''industrial'' workers apart; the Third World got very little attention from them. The concept of the "subaltern" was invented later for this very reason. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::My objection was not to the idea that the Spanish-American War was a war of expansion, but to Zinn's claim that the labor unions opposed the war ''for that reason''. Labor unions are not the oh-so-culturally-sensitive saintly conclaves that fill Reds' delusions, and the main reason that unionists were against war then was that the big-shots used it to set various groups of ''industrial'' workers apart; the Third World got very little attention from them. The concept of the "subaltern" was invented later for this very reason. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 +
::::::You said "sufficient power" not "total control".  The US government ignored industry murdering striking workers, do you deny that?  The rest of your response is verging on delusional reactionarianism. So they were against it because the titans were using it to wreck the labor movement?  Good reason, IMHO. {{User:Human/sig|}} 03:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:28, 30 September 2010

Starting shot

Following the discussion here, I have located the time to read several chapters in Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, cited as a high-quality example of revisionist history. I can now safely say that Zinn, and those producing historical-revisionist works of quality equal to or lesser than his, are bullshit peddlers, conspiracy theorists, essentialists, and generally people who, in the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read Howard Zinn, but I honestly didn't think you were this small minded. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I hardly think that it is "small-minded" to object to the notion that (if I may be allowed to cite the whammy I was hit with on the first page I read) Jacksonian democracy was an elaborate sham invented by an enormous conspiracy of industrialists.
From what I can gather, academic historians consider Zinn's book to be of rather poor quality, objecting to it on the grounds that it is a cut-and-paste job based on secondary sources. One called it "deranged;" I concur with that analysis.
I imagine that the works you cited on the other page are of higher quality, but if Zinn's book is held up as a good example of revisionist history, it gives quite a poor impression of the whole genre. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious - LX, can you present some evidence of your own to counter Zinn's analysis of Jacksonian democracy? Because I'm starting to get the feeling that your preconceived notions of American history are getting in the way of a clear-headed reaction to the revisionist school. FortunaImperatrixMundi (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That notion of Zinn's is called a conspiracy theory, exhibiting what William F. Buckley, Jr. called "the Birch fallacy;" furthermore, Zinn used it as a premise rather than a thesis. It does not need to be dignified with any serious refutation.
But, if you insist: (1) The industrial interests were, at that point, not quite so powerful as they became later. (2) The other elements of the "elite" at that time, such as landowners and the banking establishment, were the ones hardest hit by the Jacksonian measures of expanding the franchise and ending the federal banking monopoly. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I cannot comment on Zinn. From what I've heard he is a bit whacko so I'm not surprised you had this reaction. On the other hand, to dismiss the entire school of 'revisionism' (Which varies greatly from author to author and from idealogue to idealogue) on the basis of a couple of chapters of what is allegedly a poor exemplar... well... Its a bit silly. Besides, every historian engages in revisionism; if they didn't there wouldn't ever be any history books. We'd only ever have one canonical chronice that 'tells the story'. However source material changes its meaning over time as other factors (Economic, social etc.) come into play and greater scrutiny. One can look at an event through a chasm of political change without taking into account economic and social metamorphis - ones conclusions will thus differ according to the degree of relevance you attach to either institutional, political or economic forces. And then there is the power of personality, of personal charisma. If history were so simple that historians never had to question causation then listener might have a point. But he doesn't, because there are often several different arguments concerning causation with any single event - and I defy anyone to claim that absolute objectivity is even possible. In short, Listener, The world isn't that simple. MarcusCicero (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I will have to back off a bit from my remarks about "fact-chronicling," which as Bondurant pointed out on the other page, is probably me putting too much stock by science. But I will continue to hold that the proper response to bias and to the impossibility of objectivity is to make an effort to minimize the bias, rather than legitimize it.
Again, I would only use Zinn's book to condemn the whole of revisionism insofar as his work is a high-quality example of it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with ListenerX. A lot of people interpret it as a different perspective of history from the eyes of those who aren't the victors, or those who were the underdogs at certain eras. The preconceived notion that "history is written by the victors" fuels this belief. At the root of what Zinn is saying throughout the entire book is just that. He's pushing a socialist, anti-capitalist agenda in his book. Not even the good kind. The conspiracy theory kind. --emc [TALK] 03:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I consider some of Zinn's claims that his viewpoint had been "sidelined" prior to his book's publication to be false; in particular, his claims about the labor movements. For example, I was at one point taught the history of the Lowell mill system; later, when I read some more about it, I came to the conclusion that what I had originally been taught greatly overemphasized Lowell's significance in U.S. history.
I believe that Zinn is on record as saying that his primary purpose in writing the book was to drum up revolutionary consciousness, rather than to contribute to the field of history, which means that (regardless of whether one agrees with that goal) he is by definition a bullshitter. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Did you have to read A People's History for a high-school class? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I had to read Zinn for my high school AP US History class - A People's History was kind of like the secondary textbook. I don't think Zinn could be considered a "bullshitter;" however, he was a kind of history gadfly, taking very unconventional positions to try to stimulate debate and reconsideration of even the most established theses. I don't believe he is right, necessarily. No historian is ever right. Blue (pester) 16:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
That makes him a bullshitter, according to Harry Frankfurt's definition (a person who does not care about the truth of his statements as some other goal is paramount).
I was very surprised to learn that this book was being assigned as reading in high-schools. If high-schoolers are being given this sort of dreck in volume, it is no wonder they come into college semi-literate. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but.....

Since I have read and own a copy of A People's History, I am curious as to where you, Listener, got the impression that this book would be anything close to the mainstream interpretation of history, when Zinn himself (in the introduction of my copy, at least) is forthcoming with the fact that the book is an alternative interpretation of history "from the perspective of history's losers." Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 08:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly did I say that I thought it was a "mainstream interpretation"? I knew it was "alternative," but I am sorry to say that it is worse than I expected it to be when I picked it up. I thought Zinn was just going to follow the usual pattern of going light on the factual claims and heavy on the drivel, maybe do a little white-lying at worst. Nope. Conspiracy theories, outright falsehoods, and the seam-lines almost showing on the boundaries between where he copy-pasted from one source saying "black" and from another saying "Negro." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Which chapters did you read, and can we have page numbers supporting your claims? I'd like to re-evaluate my copy, which I read cover to cover. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
All right, examples. (I have started with the second volume since it came in first at the library and Blue said the chapters could be read independently.)
The conspiracy theory is pretty much throughout what I have read, that a sinister cartel of industrialists had sufficient power to make a con-game out of the whole U.S. government. Not just influence it enough to pass desired laws, but control it with that complete control that these sinister conspiracies so often wield. The "black" vs. "Negro" business was most notable in "Slavery Without Submission."
In "The Empire and the People" (page 94 in the copy I have) he makes the claim, with no source as far as I can see, that the U.S. bombarded Greytown, Nicaragua "to avenge an insult to the American Minister," when it was actually a response to the Nicaraguan government (at that time a British protectorate) charging tolls to American ships passing through.
In that chapter he also claims that the labor unions at that time "opposed American expansionism" (page 99) but only quotes those unions as opposing war, the only connection being that the war being opposed is the Spanish-American War. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. "a sinister cartel of industrialists had sufficient power to make a con-game out of the whole U.S. government" as true today as it was then. And the Spanish-American War was a war of expansion. We got to own the Philippines, eh? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me. That level of control only exists in deranged fantasies. Industrial cartels could influence the system a lot, and even subvert it to some degree, but they never had total control. And even assuming such control was possible, they did not have it in the time of Andrew Jackson.
My objection was not to the idea that the Spanish-American War was a war of expansion, but to Zinn's claim that the labor unions opposed the war for that reason. Labor unions are not the oh-so-culturally-sensitive saintly conclaves that fill Reds' delusions, and the main reason that unionists were against war then was that the big-shots used it to set various groups of industrial workers apart; the Third World got very little attention from them. The concept of the "subaltern" was invented later for this very reason. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
You said "sufficient power" not "total control". The US government ignored industry murdering striking workers, do you deny that? The rest of your response is verging on delusional reactionarianism. So they were against it because the titans were using it to wreck the labor movement? Good reason, IMHO. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)